BetterScanning holder owners: opinions?

[Ari]

Hi,
I'm about to buy a holder from Doug at Betterscanning.
My Epson 4990 works well, and the stock holders are ok.
I scan 4x5 and 120 film.

What I like about the Epson holders:
1. I can load two sheets at a time, easily.
2. I don't have to tape film to a pane of glass

What I don't like about the Epson holders:
1. Loss of film edges
2. Difficult to load curly 120 film
3. No height adjustment

There are two things advantageous to the BS holders (wet-mounting):
1. Full-frame scanning
2. Optimal height adjustment

A big minus with BS holders, for me, is taping the film.
It takes more time, and seems very fiddly, not to mention I hate the idea of fingerprints, or dropping the neg on the floor (it'll happen).

I don't want to tape negs, if I can avoid it, so I'm considering buying the wet-mount station only.

Will this be good enough for scanning 4x5 and 120?
Do the advantages of wet-mounting outweigh the hassles?
Should I get the wet- and dry-mounting station, learn how to tape negatives, and accept a slower rate of scanning (i.e. more time to set up each negative for scanning)?

I've read all the pertinent posts, but still, your thoughts are greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.

[Tony Evans]

My personal experience over the last year..
1. Epson Holder to BSH great improvement, espec. as my V700 optimum height is 3.75mm.
2. BSH to Wet Scanning. Even greater improvement in scan quality.

[Ken Lee]

Here's my test (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/holderAdjustment.html) of the BetterScanning holders. Thumbs up IMHO.

[Ari]

Thanks, Tony.
Ken, thanks for the link to the test; was that dry- or wet-mounted?

To any others: are there any qualms about day-to-day use, like more time spent setting up, taping negs, etc etc?

Thanks again.

[edtog]

I've used one for the past year and while they are very very good you can save a lot of money by buying some anti glare glass and using coins or cardboard as the shims.

[Ari]

Thanks, Ed, I've done that before, but I'm leaning more toward wet-mounting.

[sanking]

Will this be good enough for scanning 4x5 and 120?
Do the advantages of wet-mounting outweigh the hassles?
Should I get the wet- and dry-mounting station, learn how to tape negatives, and accept a slower rate of scanning (i.e. more time to set up each negative for scanning)?



Good enough is in the eye of the beholder, not the word on stone. I have compared 5X7" B&W and color negatives with fluid mounted V700, professional flatbed fluid mounted scans, and drum scans. Given similar scanning and post scanning processing there is very little difference in final image quality in my work flow in print size up to 20X35". In my opinion final image quality, up to about 4X-5X, is more dependent on the way you scan and work the image file than on which scanner is used.

With medium format the difference in image quality at a print size of 11X14" between a drum scan and a scan with an Epson V700 is very obvious. 4X5 is a format that I don't use very much.

Fluid mounting with the BetterScanning holder is very easy. Takes just a bit of practice but once learned you will get better scans fluid mounting than dry mounting, if you do it right. Fluid mounting is also very easy with any professional flatbed scanner like the Eversmart or Cezanne.

There is no reason to ever put tape on a negative with fluid mounting. You simply fluid mount the negative to the glass, then fluid mount a sheet of thin mylar over the negative, and tape down the mylar. It takes me about a minute to do this. I think best practice is to scan with the negative emulsion facing down with the BetterScanning holder instead of through the glass, but in practice it would be hard to see any difference.

Please note that my comments are limited to B&W and color negative film.

Sandy





Thanks again.[/QUOTE]

[Ari]

Thank you very much, Sandy; I shoot B&W and colour neg as well, so that is doubly helpful.

[Ken Lee]

Ken, thanks for the link to the test; was that dry- or wet-mounted?

My test was dry-mounted.

The test shown was performed on a Medium Format negative out of convenience, but I wouldn't use the Epson 4990 or V700 for Medium Format except for small degrees of enlargement.

If you're a do-it-yourself type with time to spend, you can make your own as others have described. On the other hand, with a simple purchase you get the "turn-key" solution with instructions, masking materials, etc.

[Ari]

My test was dry-mounted.

The test shown was performed on a Medium Format negative out of convenience, but I wouldn't use the Epson 4990 or V700 for Medium Format except for small degrees of enlargement.

If you're a do-it-yourself type with time to spend, you can make your own as others have described. On the other hand, with a simple purchase you get the "turn-key" solution with instructions, masking materials, etc.

Thanks, Ken.
I'd rather have the turnkey solution.

[Robert Oliver]

very happy with my 6x17 holder....

[tnabbott]

I used the 120 holders for the Epson 750. They worked great.

[Ari]

very happy with my 6x17 holder....


I used the 120 holders for the Epson 750. They worked great.

Thanks, guys; any pros/cons on the wet-mount vs dry-mount stations?

[Cesare Berti]

Ari, hope you don't mind but I have a related question.

I bought the Better Scanning adjustable holder for my Epson 4870 but never had an opportunity to try it before it passed on. Recently picked up a used V700 and have been doing tests (dry mounting) to determine best height as the holder only has an original height of 1.0 mm.

Problem I'm having is determining best scan at a given height. It reminds me of sitting in an optometrist's chair and determining which line looks better. I've been comparing the scans at 200% in Photoshop CS4, the only adjustment is mild sharpening.

The Better scanning website suggests increments of .2mm, I've been flicking back & forth between 3.3mm & 3.8mm to see a difference and can't with any certainty.

How much adjustment before one sees a difference? Is it a depth of field issue or is it just my old eyes?

[Ari]

Good question, Cesare; I'm sure I'll have a few when my holder arrives.
From my limited readings, you should first be scanning at a high enough resolution so the differences are more easily seen; something in the neighbourhood of 2000 dpi.
If you are already doing that, then I hope someone else can chime in with a suggestion.

[biedron]

See post 7 in this thread: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=82286&highlight=scanner+focus. It seems there is a range in which focus does not vary very much with height - outside that range, the variation is much more significant. Perhaps your scanner is already in the "sweet spot"

Bob

[Frank Petronio]

I have an older BS (unfortunate naming choice there...) 120 holder that I prefer to the Epson holders because it has "T" locks - simple pieces of plastic that fit into the channel and you can place between frames to help flatten the film. It works really well with my old 6x12 Noblex film. But scanning 120 on an Epson is always going to be a compromised solution. I really like 120 but the notion of getting a Coolscan 9000 really puts me off.

For 4x5 it is hard to beat the cheap Epson holder, unfortunately. If I want to get fancy I use a piece of AN glass and pennies.

In all cases it is easy to test for optimal height, or at least closer to optimal height.

If I feel like I should wet mount, then I probably should send it off for a proper drum scan or at least use my friend's Flextight.

I use Epson scans most of the time and they make fine 11x17-ish prints with no complaints. But I see it as more of a nicer proofing device than as a final scan. Obviously I have a huge backlog of film to get masterful scans made of, but the benefit of waiting is that they are organically edited by popularity. If I simply made 50 $100 scans of whatever I shot over a year, only 4-5 would have staying power. But if I wait a few years, then I can go back to my 2007 images and easily pick the 5-10 images that deserve better scans and editing. Plus my editing skills (choice and with Photoshop) are much improved since 2007.

But for assignments and commercial repro? If you can't get a worthy scan from 4x5 and an Epson (dry, stock holder) then you should hang it up and go home. It's plenty of overkill and way beyond the sorts of crappy drumscans I used to get from respectable printers and service bureaus in the 90s. And, unfortunately standards aren't any higher. High end, fine art standards - aka Alec Soth, Gursky - are the highest level right now... 99.9% of commercial work is medium quality and fairly low res.

I don't see how to justify the expense, learning curve, space, or commitment to owning a high-end scanner so long as there are good options like Lenny and other hardcore practitioners to hire. My two cents....

[Cesare Berti]

Thanks for the link, I missed it when doing my search.

I agree the Epson with the stock holder gives very good results with 4x5. I got the BS adjustable holder to scan Polaroid 55 negs and the odd 5x7. I like to leave the negatives with the tear away film section attached thus they don't fit the standard Epson 4x5 holder. I have 24 sheets left, expired 2003, yet the film still produces beautiful negatives.

Re the optimal height, I settled on 3.48mm mainly because I found a shim (plastic strip) 2.48 thick + 1.00mm for the holder height with no adjustment. I've given up for the moment searching for the "optimal height" though it still bugs me a little and will go back to it.

[Nathan Potter]

The depth of field plotted in that ref. on post #16 was made quite carefully. I suspect it to be pretty valid for all V750s' since the hardware is, presumably, all identical. The actual height for best focus varies somewhat due, no doubt, to manufacturing tolerances. This variance seems to be between 3 to 4 mm above the Epson platen. The depth of field varies depending on what is chosen as a resolution standard. The plot referenced seems to be a slightly distorted hyperbolic function in both directions. The actual equivalent spot size from other measurements appears to be 20 to 30 um in diameter with sort of a gaussian pattern.

The best way to quickly find a point of best focus is to use a wedge focus target. I think I have explained this in a post somewhere recently - search "wedge mask".

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Nathan Potter]

Note what Petronio says above about justifying ownership of a high end scanner. Films that can make use of all that resolution are few and far between - at least for me. Unless you are a pro or do an inordinate amount of business in very large prints you may find that few of your films demand high resolution scans. It would be more economical to send those to Lenny or an equivalent, known to do top quality work. If you have a film of such quality, then as a consumate artist you should want it digitized by someone who is expert in the technology.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[urs0polar]

I think the betterscanning holders are very worth it. If you can't focus the stupid POS Epson, then what good is it to have blurry scans!? After all that, work, and the end result is some crap blurry scan. OK, so we've established the need to focus.

The betterscanning holder (I have the wet+dry ANR glass mounting station thing) works well for 4x5.

The problem, however, is that there are 10 plastic screws that you turn 1/4 of a turn each to raise the height by .1mm (or something like that). This process is a VERY good solution to the problem, as it works well. You start out at 0.0mm, with the thing on the platten, and scan a known sharp area of the negative while raising the platform by .2mm iteratively. As you can imagine, this takes f.o.r.e.v.e.r.

So, once you find your optimal height, you then have to start all the screws from 0.0 again and guess at the average best height because you may have turned some of the screws a bit more than 90 degrees per turn when scanning/checking/turning, and so the entire platform can be tilted a bit and the sharpness in the scan will be uneven and/or all the screws don't reach the platten and you're really only rocking back and forth on two or three of them. So, you pray to the gods of scanning and try to make everything exactly perfect, then at some point you say "good enough" and run with it. I used a MF negative to calibrate since the lenses are sharper, then I realized that 4x5 film is usually thicker, and even with tape, it can sag more towards the platten since it's bigger. So, luckily I'm lazy, so I said "good enough" again. Lots of that going on.

However, "good enough" is, in reality, very good. My scans look WAY better with the betterscanning holder than they did before with the stock holder. The difference is night and day and definitely worth $100 in piece of mind that yes, this scanner actually can get sharp output.

I just dry mount with tape. I tried using those cotton gloves, but then I get little pieces of cotton to dust spot (lintless gloves my a$$), so I'm just very careful and I use a combination of washed hands to grip by the edges like when loading holders, Scotch Magic tape, and a cuticle stick (like $2 for 15, they are invaluable for holding down edges and whatnot while mounting and fussing with edges of film. I should call them "scanning sticks" and sell them for $10 a pop :))

Cuticle Pusher (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000FKXSU4/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B001CYC3SA&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0XRAVT8KD0GBMCAS8TRS)

I haven't seen the need to try wet mounting, to be honest. Any more work to get a 5% improvement in this laborious process and I'd shoot myself. The scans look quite good dry.

It drove me nuts to spend so much time mounting MF and 35mm -- and I complained so incessantly -- that my wife actually pushed me to buy the Nikon 9000 for MF before they stopped making them (she's prescient like that) so at least I would simmer down for the MF scanning. Double Win for the Betterscanning holder!!

Interestingly, as opposed to others, my optimal height is 1.8mm. Go figure. Here is my reference scan on MF: http://www.flickr.com/photos/urs0polar/3317832213/in/photostream/

I wish they made one for 8x10 though... for 8x10, I bought a 8.5x11" piece of ANR glass from focalpoint, which I place on top of the 8x10 negative straight on the platten. Otherwise the heat of the scan makes that sucker curl like mad, and on a V700, you have to be very careful about taping to the platten because if you obstruct the film guide in any way, the V700 decides to make streaks through your scan. Grr 8x10.

But, for 4x5 and MF, it works great, but you've been warned: it's tedious.

I've said this before, but if Epson got their __ out of their ___ and made an autofocusing V700/750/Vwhatever for under (or about) $1000, I think they would sell a boatload of them.

my 2 cents

[richard brown]

A question for Robert and his 6x17 holder.... are you referring to the anti newton glass for the medium format holders or that variable height holder where you have to cut out
the masks? I have used the medium format and because the opening is bigger than the negative area, I seem to lose a lot of contrast and have to pump it up in lightroom software. I imagine the mask would correct this.
Is anyone using that variable height holder to scan xpan or noblex 35mm panoramic negatives???? I can't afford a nikon 9000 or older 8000 scanner for those and some occasional hasselblad negatives.
Thanks for any help and recommendations. Richard

[Ari]

Polar Bear, thanks for your thoughts and instructions; I'm still waiting on my BS holder, I bought a wet/dry one too.
I think Epson holders are ok, for rough scans, but I think taking advantage of finely adjustable height is reason enough to forego Epson holders.
I'm not really into the tedious part, though I think I'll learn to put up with it; processing film is tedious for me, but I'd rather lose a finger than pay a lab to do it.
Thanks again.

[urs0polar]

Polar Bear, thanks for your thoughts and instructions; I'm still waiting on my BS holder, I bought a wet/dry one too.
I think Epson holders are ok, for rough scans, but I think taking advantage of finely adjustable height is reason enough to forego Epson holders.
I'm not really into the tedious part, though I think I'll learn to put up with it; processing film is tedious for me, but I'd rather lose a finger than pay a lab to do it.
Thanks again.

Ari,

I agree completely. I think you'll be happy with it. Once you get the height set, you can leave it there for a long time and be ok, so then it's just the tedium of mounting, which is doable.

As for lab scans, I don't think most labs do a very good job for what you pay them. Some say they "drum scan", which really means Imacon/Flextight, or they say "professional flatbed", which could even be a V700, depending on their interpetation... and they definitely are using the stock holders.

So, like Frank had mentioned, the V700 is great, and if I ever make a negative good enough to warrant it, there's always the high end drum scanner guys here on this forum to send to.